Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
This is actually the reason I do support him (Romney). Of the Republicans, he has been the least likely to do that.
Except when he ran for Governor as pro-choice, then ran for President pro-life.
That's not entirely accurate though. Actually, it's not even close.
As a Governor in an overwhelmingly pro-choice state, he signed pro-choice laws passed by the state legislature. For conservatives, it's not about being for or against any single issue (as much as some seem to think). It's about where government should act within the scope of our system. Conservatives make a distinction between foreign and domestic policy (ie: Government should wield strong power internationally, but have a light hand domestically). We make a distinction between branches within the government (ie: The executive and Legislative branches have different powers and functions and decisions made in one branch should be made differently in the other). And finally, we make a distinction between the level of the government involved (ie: State and local government should be more actively involved in "morality laws" then the federal level).
It would be incredibly hypocritical for Republicans to argue for decades that Roe v. Wade was a horrible ruling because abortion laws should be set in each state based on the desires of that state's citizens and then turn around and say: "But a state that heavily supports pro-choice shouldn't be able to pass pro-choice leaning legislation".
It's the same deal with Guiliani and his Illegal Immigration issue in New York. He got attacked because he chose to ignore the illegal status of people if they came forward to be witnesses in criminal investigations. But that's a local decision based on the specifics of that city. You cannot assume that this in anyway indicates what his policies would be at the federal level. Just as you can assume that just because Romney signed pro-choice legislation at the state level, it doesn't mean that he's going to pursue a pro-choice agenda at the federal level.
Those aren't inconsistent positions. In fact, they are perfectly consistent with classical conservative views. Let the citizens of the states set their laws regarding abortion. Don't impose it on them from on high. That's what conservatives stand for.
Quote:
Atleast McCain has always been conservative when it comes to social issues.
Well. Yes and no. McCain is fine as a conservative. He also has been bashed on issues, when he shouldn't have been (for much the same reasons I outlined above).
He does have a track record as a legislator of being too willing to compromise significant portions of conservative position in order to get a bill with his name on it to the floor. Looking purely at McCain-Kennedy, it was clear what McCain's position was he wanted the focus on the national security angle, and thought that coming up with a way to allow for the existing labor push from Mexico to be able to find the employment they need in a legal manner would help by reducing the "needle in a haystack" problem we're faced with today.
Unfortunately, his partner in this choose to toss in some additional aspects to the bill that largely nullified the benefits and made it unpalatable to most Republicans (beyond even the "OMG! You're not just going to build a big fence?). Dems didn't like it either because it didn't protect union jobs and salaries, so it died a horrible death.
Um... But at least he tried something. Also, there's no reason to assume that his willingness to overly compromise as a Senator (legislative branch) translates into being a pushover in the White House. Again. They're different branches with different powers and responsibilities. Congress is kinda supposed to come up with compromises. The Senate especially. The President is supposed to set policy and work towards achieving those things. Those really are two very different things...